The statistical information included in this report has been obtained
from a variety of official and unofficial sources. Most official sources
are from the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka whose
methodology is the same as that adopted in the Statistical Bureau of
any Western country. Thus their accuracy, subject to normal statistical
errors, have not been seriously questioned. Besides most of the
statistics come from the period before the Tamils had made a great
issue of the alleged discrimination. They are not statistics that are
presented after the event, but had been available all along for interested
groups to check.

Introduction

In 1983 Tamil racists in Sri Lanka commenced a terrorist war
to carve out for themselves out of the sovereign territory of Sri Lanka
an apartheid-style state to be called Eelam . In the twelve years since
this war has claimed over 50,000 lives comprising people of all
communities living in Sri Lanka. It has touched almost every part of
the country even though most of the fighting has been confined to the
North and East. Terrorist bombs have exploded in southern Sri Lanka
several of them claiming more victims that the notorious terrorist bomb
in Okalahoma City in April 1995 which resulted in widespread
condemnation of the terrorists responsible. Systematic ethnic cleansing
has been instituted in the North and the East, the main victims of which
have been Sinhalese and Muslims long resident in these areas. Even
Tamils in the North have been killed by the separatist terrorists for not
co-operating fully with the terrorist leadership. The military campaign
has also resulted in the death of a number of non-combatants, as has
occurred in almost every war. Since the US war against Iraq this kind
of casualty has been called "collateral damage", but it has of course
been characteristic of all wars. The Sri Lankan conflict has been no
exception. In addition to the direct victims several thousand more had
been made refugees, many of the Tamils fleeing to foreign countries,
even though only a very small fraction of those given asylum in the
West are genuine refugees.

Simultaneously with the military action of the terrorists in Sri
Lanka their support groups overseas commenced a propaganda
campaign to mislead foreign governments, the media, voluntary groups
concerned with human rights, religious bodies and the international
community in general. The perpetrators of this misinformation ranged
from private individuals to a multitude of well-funded organisations,
which collectively have been referred to as the International Tamil
Separatist Lobby (ITSL). The constant theme of ITSL propaganda
was that the Tamils of Sri Lanka had been subjected to "discrimination"
and other disabilities, and that political separation from Sri Lanka was
the only available option. To anyone really conversant with the
situation in Sri Lanka this claim was laughable. Perhaps it was because
of this that this propaganda was not adequately refuted in its incipient
stages by those interested in the unity of Sri Lanka. Perhaps they
underestimated the military threat posed by the separatists. Gradually
when it dawned that the terrorist war in Sri Lanka was a carefully
orchestrated international campaign to break-up Sri Lanka the charges
of the separatists came to be refuted by the correct facts about the Sri
Lankan situation. Unfortunately these remedial measures were not
adequate and many of the persons who were converted by the separatist
propaganda continue to entertain the views propagated by the ITSL.

This work is yet another attempt to debunk the propaganda of
the separatists. The stock-in-trade of the ITSL propaganda was not to
cite facts, because there are none of any consequence to support them,
but to rely on personal anecdotes of persons allegedly the victims of a
plot by the majority Sinhalese community. Most of these personal
anecdotes were fabrications, but the listeners could never establish their
veracity but believed them going on the general presumption that a
minority must be discriminated because they are a minority. They
forgot that whatever truth this maxim may hold it is not true of Sri
Lanka where the Tamils have since colonial times been a privileged
minority. Thus the ITSL propagandists were generally very successful
with unthinking elements in the Press, and also with certain politicians
who neither had the time nor the inclination to ascertain the full facts
of the situation.

What is attempted here is not to rely on hearsay or
unsubstantiated anecdote, but to state the facts. Fortunately Sri Lanka
was one of the few developing countries with a wealth of statistical
information on a variety of social and economic indicators. Census
survey in Sri Lanka have been on par with those of the West for a very
long time, and a wealth of statistics on other matters are available from
official and private sources. This information can be combed to easily
refute the claims of the ITSL propagandists.

In this situation we shall look at the statistical picture relating
to a number of indicators as it was before 1983. This year is crucial
to this question. After the terrorist war commenced the whole fabric
of civil society was disrupted and with large areas of the country under
the control of the terrorists normal activity could not continue. In fact
there has not been a census since 1981, and it is very unlikely that once
could be carried out in the whole of the country until the war is ended.

The Sri Lankan Tamil Claims

This is not the place to give a history of the Tamils of Sri
Lanka, another subject on which ITSL propaganda has woven many
myths. Historical records show that the ancient Sinhalese kingdom of
Sri Lanka had been subjected to waves of invasion by Tamils from the
South of India and that for long periods of time the Northern part of
the country had been ruled by Tamil invaders from South India. It was
during these periods of colonisation that a Tamil presence was
established in Northern Sri Lanka, particularly the Jaffna peninsula.
Prior to this even this region was inhabited by Sinhalese as historical
records and archaeological ruins testify.

The rest of the country was relatively free of Tamil occupation,
even the Eastern part of Sri Lanka which is now claimed as part of a
mythical Tamil homeland. In fact when Robert Knox, the most famous
of European captives in Sri Lanka, landed in Trincomalee he was
apprehended by representatives of the Sinhalese King who ruled this
part of the country. But during colonial times the Tamils spread to
other parts of the country, including the East, mainly under the
patronage of the colonial ruler.

TABLE 1. Ethnic Composition of the Population
Ethnic Group Per Cent
Sinhalese 74.0
Sri Lankan Tamils 12.6
Moors 7.1
Indian Tamils 5.6
Other 1.3
TOTAL 100.0

Table 1 gives the ethnic composition of Sri Lanka as revealed
by the 1981 Census which is the last Census we have. It shows that the
Sri Lankan Tamils, who are the main party involved in the separatist
movement comprised only 12.6(roughly one-eighth) of the
population. The Indian Tamils, who were brought to Sri Lanka to work
the tea plantations by the British inhabit a different part of the country
and are not a party to the plan to create a Tamil "homeland" called
Eelam. When we refer to "Tamils" in this document we shall mean
only the Sri Lankan Tamils. It must not be thought that all Tamils live
in the area that is claimed as their "homeland". In 1971 29.20f all
Tamils lived in areas that are generally called "Sinhalese areas". By
1981 the figure has risen to 32.8As mentioned before no census has
been taken since 1981, but if a count be now taken it would exceed the
1981 figure. The reverse has taken place in the Northern Province. In
1971 4.50f the population was Sinhalese; by 1981 this had fallen to
3 0E+00ven this small number has not been tolerated and has now sunk
to zero, with many actually killed by the Tamils. A similar process is
now taking place in the Eastern province through ethnic cleansing.

The proportion of Tamils in the population is a significant
statistic when we seek to establish whether the charge of discrimination
against Tamils is a valid one. If the Tamils are indeed discriminated
then the proportion of Tamils in the area in which discrimination is
claimed must differ from the one-eight share which a non-
discriminatory policy may be assumed to yield. In what follows we
shall devise a statistical measure, which we shall call an Index of
Advantage which is obtained by dividing the proportion going to the
ethnic community by the proportion of that ethnic community in the
total population. If this index is unity there is neither advantage nor
disadvantage to the community concerned; if it exceeds unity that group
will have a positive advantage, while if it is less than unity that group
will have a negative advantage, i.e. be discriminated against. If the
ITSL claim about the existence of discrimination against Tamils is true
then the Index of Advantage will be less than unity in all the relevant
areas (such as employment eduction, health, or economic development.

The principal claims of the Tamil propagandists are:

Tamils have been discriminated with respect to employment,
education, and in several other areas.

The language policy in force in Sri Lanka amounts to
discrimination.

The ethnic riots in Sri Lanka is a severe form
of discrimination.

The next three sections examine the evidence on discrimination, and
following two section will consider the language policy and the ethnic
riots.

Alleged Discrimination in Employment

Discrimination in employment has generally been the most
important forms of discrimination where a group has been subjected to
discrimination. In many Western countries blacks and coloured people
have been confined to low-paying jobs and generally the highly paid
professional jobs have been confined to the privileged group. Many
people who listen to the claims of the ITSL propagandists would
believe that this is the case with the Tamils as well.

TABLE 2. Important Position held by Tamils

Ministers of State
The Chief Justice of Sri Lanka
The Inspector General of Police
The Commander of the Armed Forces
Chairman of the Central Bank
Chairman of the State TV
Heads of Government Department
University Professors and Vice-Chancellors
Ambassadors and High Commissioners

In fact the opposite is the case. In Sri Lanka the Tamils have been a
favoured group with respect to employment. This is seen in the
proportion of Tamils holding key positions, their representation in the
professions and the employment opportunities available to them
generally.

Table 2 lists some key positions held by Tamils both before and
after the present emergency. Of course at any given moment of time
Tamils may not have held all of them, but many of these positions are
usually held by Tamils at any given time. It is not necessary to
mention the names of prominent Tamils who have held these positions
as this information is readily available. In positions like Cabinet
Ministers and Heads of Departments the number of Tamils occupying
these positions usually exceed the proportion of Tamils in the
population. Only after the commencement of the current emergency,

with the terrorists taking reprisals against Tamils they see as
collaborating with the Government has there been some reluctance on
the part of Tamils to hold some of these positions.

Table 3 gives the percentage composition (with Index of
Advantage in brackets) of six key occupational groups in the Public
Service in 1982. It will be seen that in every case the Tamils enjoy and
advantage and it is the Sinhalese who are disadvantaged. If the
proportion of professionals in the private sector is included the

advantage would have been greater. Statistics in this area are not
readily available and in any case the charge is that it is the Government
that is discriminating. Thus there is no foundation for the claim that
Tamils are discriminated against in top-level employment. The fact is
that there have never been a racial requirement for holding any position
in the Public Service and Tamils can aspire to any position in the
public service and have reached the top positions.

Nor can it be claimed that Tamils are left out on the unemployment
heap. The unemployment rate is generally much higher amongst the
Sinhalese than amongst the Tamils. Table 4 gives some statistics which
shows that not only is the typical Sinhalese twice as likely to be
unemployment, but also has the highest unemployment rate of all ethnic
groups. A more detailed analysis of the unemployment statistics by
district and race also gives the same picture. In Table 5 five districts
where Tamils constitute a majority of the population is shown in the
second column and 5 typical Sinhalese-majority districts are given in
the first column. For these 10 districts unemployed males are shown as
a proportion of the relevant ethnic group. It will be seen that in all
cases the unemployment rate amongst the Tamils is less than that
amongst the Sinhalese.

Thus in terms of this most universally regarded indicator of
discrimination there is absolutely no truth in the claims of the ITSL.

Alleged Discrimination in Education

It is often claimed that Tamils have always held education in
high regard and discrimination in this area has been most galling to
them. Once again the facts tell a different story.

Incidentally the Tamils had been favoured with regard to
Education in colonial times. The British for a long time left education
to religious bodies, and because a larger proportion of Tamils converted
to Christianity the missionaries established more schools there than
elsewhere. Besides the Tamils were regarded by the British as a group
that could be counted to give them support and therefore looked to that
community to provide it with many of its functionaries. The privileged
position of the Tamils continued under independence, but the
Government sought to provide educational facilities to those who had
been deprived of it hitherto whether they be Sinhalese, Muslims or
even Tamils.

Table 6 shows that as far as the higher levels of education are
concerned the Tamils once again occupy a favoured position. In all the
faculties listed (which are generally considered the more prestigious
areas of tertiary education) it is the Sinhalese who continue to be
discriminated against. Incidentally the preponderance of Tamils have
been in large part been due to the system of admissions. All students
sit for the qualifying examinations in their mother tongue, and it is a
well established fact that Tamil examiners consistently mark up the
Tamils as against other examiners who stick to normal academic
standards. It is to prevent this kind of abuse that for a short period
admissions were to be limited to the population of each district. This
scheme did not disadvantage the Tamils, but merely established a level
playing field. However the system was abandoned when Universities
were established in regional areas, including one in the North.

When it comes to the provision of general education the picture
is no different. Table 7 gives some selected school statistics for the year
1983, selecting five districts where Tamils predominate and five where
Sinhalese predominate. The statistics for the entirety of Sri Lanka is
also included. It will be seen that once again, in terms of the provision
of schooling no systematic bias cannot be identified. However direct
comparison between the ethnic groups is not possible and several schools in Colombo ane the other large centres of population have
bilingual schools, and school facilities are available to students of both
communities. This accounts for the larger expenditure on per student
in Colombo than other provinces including Jaffna. One significant
figure is that 270f all schools in the country are classified as Tamil-
medium schools which gives the Tamils a favourable Index of
Advantage at least on the basis of this index alone.

Another statistic that could be used to illustrate the favourable
situation of Tamils in education is the enrolment of science students in
pre-University (Advanced Level) classes. In 1982 the average for Sri
Lanka was 36.7 students per 1000 in the population. But in the
Northern and Eastern provinces (the areas were the bulk of the Tamils
live) the figure was 51.7 per thousand. Science education is considered
a key indicator in Sri Lanka. On this score too the Tamils do better
than the rest of the country.

It must be remembered that Sri Lanka is one of the few
countries in the world where Tamils can study from the Kindergarten
to the University in the Tamil Language. This is not possible in many
parts of India, which is the place of origin of Tamils, let alone in the
other countries to which the Tamils have migrated.

Other Areas of Alleged Discrimination

Employment and education are the main grievances on which
Tamils have claimed discrimination. We have shown that on these
grounds there is no basis for a claim of discrimination. But
discrimination may be claimed in other areas as well.

We may, for instance, take the provision of health services. Table 8
gives some indicators of the provision of health case in Sri Lanka
according to the main health divisions in the country. These show that
while some diversity can be expected due to the location of the
principal hospitals there is no systematic difference between the
districts in which the Tamils predominate (indicated by asterisks) and
the other areas. However as in the case of educational provision many
Tamils live in "Sihalese areas" and would be entitled to the use of
health facilities in these areas along with the other communities
inhabiting these districts.

For discrimination in economic development let us take several
indicators. If we consider the provision of roads in 1980 there was on
average 1.89 km of roadway for every 1000 in the population. Yet the
figure in the 5 Tamil districts exceeded this: Jaffna (1.99), Mullaitivu
(8.45), Vavuniya (6.03), Mannar (4.88), Batticaloa (2.45). In 1981 the
expenditure per head of rural population on irrigation was Rs. 47.6.
Yet the corresponding figure for the Northern and Eastern Province was
Rs. 93.2. This is over twice the national average. At the time of the
outbreak of the insurgency the Government had a scheme for the
allocation of investment funds for the various District Councils. Under
this scheme the per capital investment for the whole country was Rs
28.28. Yet the per capita investment for most of the Tamil districts
exceeded this: Jaffna (33.09), Mullitivu (32.46), Batticaloa (32.21) and
Vavuniya (26.31). Only Mannar (23.58) fell slightly short of the
national average. Thus on the basis of economic development the
Tamils have no basis to claim discriminatory treatment.

Several other indicators of the "quality of life" exist in Sri Lanka. These include mortality rates, levels of nutrition, calorie intake,
etc. It would be a tedious task to analyse these figures to disprove
charges of deliberate discrimination towards Tamils. After all the onus
of proof on matters like discrimination must rest on those who make
the allegation, and it is strange that the Tamil Lobby has not produced
any evidence on this score.

Another claim of separatist propagands is that in the Land
settlement policy of the Government there has been discrimination.
This again is not correct as in all settlement of regions land has been
set aside for Tamil occupiers to an extent that is not less than their
percentage of the population. The claim that because the land
development schemes have been in areas claimed for Eelam they
should only be settled by Tamils is unteneable. Tamils have a right to
buy land in any part of Sri Lanka and have been doing so in recent
times. On the contrary it is the Sinhalese who are prevented from
buying land in the North, a policy which was initially instituted under
colonialism.

The Language Question

Next to the charge of discrimination against Tamils levelled
against Sri Lanka the most commonly heard complaint is the allegedly
unsatisfactory place given to the Tamil Language in the affairs of the
country.

A brief comment on the development of the Language question
is appropriate here. During the colonial times English was the
dominant language of administration, politics, education, business, etc.
Both Sinhalese (spoken by over 800f the population) and Tamil
(understood by perhaps 200f the population), the two indigenous
languages of Sri Lanka, were relegated to a distant second place. With
the end of colonialism the question arose as to the national language of
the land. The first attempt to address this question was in the Official
Language Act of 1956. The newly elected SLFP Government
introduced this Act, together with a complementary Reasonable Use of
Tamil Act. They were designed to address the Language question.
The first made Sinhala the "official language"; this came to be dubbed
the "Sinhala Only Act". The second defined the status of Tamil and
guaranteed its use as the medium of education and instruction up to the
highest levels, and ensured that it could be used in the courts,
parliament, etc. and as a medium for entry into employment, and for
all economic and cultural purposes. These Acts have been widely
misrepresented as involving unfair treatment of the Tamil language.
The Tamils demanded "Parity of Status" between Sinhala and Tamil,
and in many ways this was the trigger to what came to be called the
"ethnic question", which in course of time became the separatist
conflict which we are now witnessing.

In matters like this Sri Lankan practice has to be judged against
the framework of international practice. In almost every nation there
are more than one language spoken. Yet almost all countries have used
the language spoken by the majority as the official language.
Exceptions to this rule are extremely rare, e.g. Switzerland where three
languages are recognised, Belgium and Canada where two languages
are recognised. These handful of countries are the exception to the rule
that the majority language is the official language of the country.

Thus the policy enshrined in the 1956 legislation merely
conformed to international practice and cannot be taken as an act of
discrimination against Tamils. If it is indeed discrimination then almost
all countries in the world, including Australia, the United States,
France, Russia, etc. are also guilty of the same offence. In fact many
Tamils have migrated to such countries as refugees, but they have not
demanded "parity of status" for the Tamil language in these countries.
In multicultural countries like Australia it would be absurd to give
parity of status to all languages spoken in the country concerned.

The charge of discrimination with respect to minority languages
lies not in the absence of a "parity of status" in all regards, but in
denying the minority concerned of reasonable language rights. This is
exactly what the Reasonable Use of Tamil legislation in Sri Lanka was
designed to achieve.

Changes subsequent to 1956 have further strengthened the status
of Tamil. In the 1971 Constitution Tamil was declared a national
language. Indeed Sri Lanka is the only sovereign state to have
conceded to Tamil the status of a national language even though only
a small proportion of the world's Tamils live in Sri Lanka. Thus Tamil
figures in the National Insignia, the currency, postage stamps, in all
official documents and forms, etc. English is also declared a national
language to assuage other minorities than Tamils.
In practice today Tamil is given virtual parity of status with
Sinhalese and English in the public life of the nation. This is seen in
the educational, political and legal systems, as well as in all other
important areas of public life. It must be remembered that there are few
countries which have given to a language spoken by less than a fifth of
the population the place that has been accorded to Tamil in Sri Lanka.
If judgement is to be based on international rights and practices the
claim of discrimination against Tamils on language grounds in Sri
Lanka cannot be sustained.
The language policy of Sri Lanka may be contrasted with that
in India which is the closest neighbour to Sri Lanka, and also contains
what can be termed the original motherland of the Tamils. The Indian
constitution states: "The official language of the Union shall be Hindi
in the Devanagari Script" [Art 343(1)]. It is precise this that was
established by the Official Language Act of 1956 in Sri Lanka when
Sinhala was declared the official language. The significant difference
is that less than half of the Indian population use Hindi in the
Devanagari script, which over 800f the population is conversant with
Sinhala. The Indian constitution's language provisions have remained
unaltered for nearly 50 years even though their implementation has
been slow. This is also the case in Sri Lanka where the 1956 Act has
not been implemented in full.

While language agitation has continued in India there has never
been a case made for separatism on the basis of the constitutional
requirement that Hindi be the "only" official language. In Sri Lanka
however this has been made the basis for the demand for the creation
of an apartheid Tamil state, with no language rights whatsoever to the
non-Tamil people, should they be allowed to live in the state of Eelam
if and when it comes into existence.

When we move from India to other areas where Tamils have
migrated we do not find anything like the position accorded to Tamil
in Sri Lanka. There are substantial Tamil minorities in Malaysia,
Singapore, Fiji, parts of Africa and even the West Indies. In most
cases they have been taken by colonial rulers. Of these countries it is
only Singapore that has given a limited place to Tamil in official
notifications. But even in Singapore there is nothing like the
widespread use of Tamil in Sri Lanka. Of course Tamils have move
to Western countries particularly after the troubles in Sri Lanka, but
they have not articulated a demand for the use of Tamil in these
countries, and of course, Tamil is not accorded any special place in
these countries.

In countries like the United States and Australia English is the
de facto offical and national language. It was felt that there is no need
ot enshrine its usage in law as this is what will occur in practice.
Indeed this has been the case. But it is interesting to note that there are
moves in the United States to enshrine the position of English as the
sole official language in law. If this is so it will be a parallel to the
1956 Sri Lankan law. Yet the U.S. is often regarded as role model for
democratic practice, and is certainly the most articulate spokesperson
for democracy. This would mean that the 1956 SL law is not as
undemocratic as it has made to appear.

The example of several other countries too could be analysed,
and would generally show the liberality of Sri Lanka's current
arrangements relating to the use of Sinhalese and Tamils as national
languages.

The Civil Disturbances

It is a sad fact of history that the Sri Lanka has seen a series of
communal disturbances and riots between 1959 and 1983. In this Sri
Lankan experience has been paralleled in many developing countries,
particularly in South Asia. Further by the standards of many Asian
countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Malaysia and
Indonesia the communal riots of Sri Lanka have been less violent.
Despite this these riots have occupied an undue share of public
attention in the West and the misrepresentation of the nature of these
has been a major objective of the propaganda of the Tamil lobby.

According to the Tamil lobby the riots are an attempt by the
Government to exterminate the Tamils living in the South by
instigating Sinhalese mobs to attack them. This is an interpretation
given to these unfortunate riots which are not supported by any
evidence. Of course many Tamils have lost their lives in these riots,
and much property owned by Tamils have been destroyed. This is
particularly true in Colombo and certain other parts of Sri Lanka.
While some Sinhalese criminal groups may have participated in these
attacks they cannot be ascribed to the Sinhalese in general, let alone to
Sri Lankan governments.

Just as some Sinhalese may have participated in these riots
many more Sinhalese have been involved in providing protection to
Tamils. The Government, of course, moved in quite early by
deploying the security forces, and providing shelter to the refugees until
more permanent arrangements could be made. There may have been
some confusion and administrative failures especially in the early hours
of a communal riot, but once its dimensions and purport have become
clear all governments of whatever complexion (UNP or SLFP) have
arisen to their reponsiblities.

Another fact relating to these riots is that it was not the Tamils
who were the only victims. In fact in many instances it was the Tamils
who first moved against Sinhalese groups in Tamil dominated areas.
The first riot, that of 1959, was the reaction to acts against Sinhalese
perpetrated by Tamils in the North and the East. Thus if the Sinhalese
mobs were guilty in the Southern parts (and undoubtedly they were) so
were the Tamils in the North. In fact almost all the Sinhalese who
were resident in the North were quickly liquidated by these riots, and
the remainder simply fled. In fact the Sinhalese victims in the North
did not find any support from the ordinary Tamil population unlike the
Tamil victims in the South. Ever since the language legislation of 1956
a number of language-oriented agitations had been carried by the Tamil
political parties with inflammatory speeches made. It was these which
triggered first the riots in the North and the East and they the reprisals
in the South.

The most publicised of the riots were those of 1983. This was
a spontaneous, if unfortunate, response to the first military action of the
LTTE in the separatist war when an army convoy was ambushed and
all the soldiers killed. When the bodies were brought for burial there
was local rioting which soon got generalised. The causes for the riots
was the general atmosphere of racism generated by the Tamil demand
for a racist homeland. Even though later propaganda adduced these
riots as the reason for the demand for a separate homeland they were
in fact the cause of this racist demand which antedated the 1983 riots.
In the case of these riots, which were televised for all the world to see,
the Government came into the scene quite rapidly even though with
hindsight it was not rapid enough. Once the situation was brought
under control the Tamils victims were sheltered, and in many cases
compensated for the loss of property. Unfortunately loss of life cannot
be compensated.

But it is a measure of the extent to which racial relations have
been repaired since the events of 1983 that the Tamil population in
Colombo and the South generally has increased, not diminished. In the
North however no Singhalese has been allowed to live, so great has
been the pogrom against them.

Not only has the number of Tamils in the South increased, but
the South has become an area of refuge for Tamils fleeing the LTTE
terror. Even the authors of Tamil communalism like the TULF
leadership had to seek asylum in Colombo, but even there they were
not free of LTTE terrorists. The increase in the number of Tamils
living in the South is the greatest testimony to the non-communal
nature of the bulk of the Sinhalese. Despite the grave provocation as
the LTTE terrorist war progressed there has not been any occurrence
of communal disturbances.

As against this the real racial bigotry has been seen in the ethnic
cleansing activities of the LTTE. These acts of deliberate communal
massacre cannot be compared to unorganised civil rioting. The LTTE
has massacred whole villages of Sinhalese and Muslims in the East in
an attempt to make that a racially pure Tamil region. These acts can
only be compared to the deliberate racial cleansing of the Nazi who
cleared large areas of Poland and Czechoslovakia of non-German
inhabitants before and during the last war.
While the incidents of ethnic rioting in SL cannot be something
that any country can justify to distort it and to use these unfortunate
riots to instigate a system of deliberate ethnic murder, as has been done
by the separatist terrorists, is to replace something that is bad with
something that is worse. Once again it is the Sinhalese who have been
painted as the villains by the apologists to those who have committed
the real crimes.

Conclusion

The facts given in the present document debunking the claim of
the International Tamil Lobby that the Tamils are discriminated against
are not new facts and have been on the public record for well over a
decade.

Why have these reasons not become generally known? One
factor is the incompetence of the information services and the
diplomatic and consular representation of Sri Lanka. In fact in the
early days when the ITSL was disseminating the myth of discrimination
against Tamils in Sri Lanka large sections of the SL diplomatic
establishment was actually run by Tamils. Many of them were
Eelamists who actually used to their offices to propagate the distortions
of the ITSL. The others were very often political opportunists who
were rewarded for their service to the party than for their competence.
Another factor was the lethargy of the non-Tamil Sri Lankan
expatriates abroad, and their well-known political biases. They were
keen on serving the political party in power in SL rather than defending
the truth about Sri Lanka. The third fact was the existence of groups
in the press and other lobby groups in foreign countries who were
receptive to the propaganda of the Eelamists.

A clear example of the kind of misapprehension about
discrimination against Tamils is revealed by the following statement
made by Senator Gareth Evans the Foreign Minister of Australia to the
Australian Senate on 1 June 1995:

"...if you go back historically most of the wrongs in this whole
affair have been perpetrated against the Tamils. There has been
a long tradition of discrimination and prejudice and various
forms of misbehaviour directed towards the Tamil by the
Sinhalese. They have been a traditionally discriminated against
minority." [Senate Hansard, 1 June 1995]

Such views can also be quoted from leading politicians in almost any
Western countries. They are not only a testimony to the success of the
Tamil lobby but also to the obtuseness and ignorance of the politicians
concerned. Whether they have the grace the admit their own ignorance
when the true facts are revealed to them is something that has still to
be seen.

In the current situation when the racist terrorists of Sri Lanka
have plumbed the depths of human misbehaviour such ignorance cannot
be permitted to prevail. The terrorists are now no longer only a threat
to Sri Lanka but also to the whole region. This no doubt explains the
changed attitude of India to the LTTE which had initially set the LTTE
in business but was not able to control its creation.

The tragedy of Sri Lanka is that the myth of discrimination is
so widely believed. In fact so successful has the Tamil propaganda
been that even the highest levels of the present government of Sri
Lanka seems to believe them. It is perhaps because of this
misapprehension that they embarked upon the policy of unconditional
negotiations with the LTTE which has become an unqualified disaster
to Sri Lanka.